Theists, Some Vexing Follow-up Questions?.?.?

[POI]

In a recent topic ---- > here (viewtopic.php?t=38559&start=60), I posed the following question:

"when one reads this Verse, was the punishment commanded by the consensus of humans, or, god himself?"

Placing this into context, the interlocutor argues that God's moral don't change, but the assigned punishment does --- for whatever reason (undefined).... The above question has yet to be answered or addressed by my debate opponent. So I thought I would offer it here.

For debate:

1) Let's suppose God's morals do not change. Okay, great... Then why in the heck does god command that a priest's daughter is to be burned to death, if she loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father, with NO caveats?

2) If there exists caveats, why are they not mentioned?

3) Was this command ultimately issued/inspired by God, or humans? And how do you know?

4) Exactly when and WHY does this command no longer apply? Or is it still applied by God?

5) How can you distinguish if any passages, at all, are inspired by any god?

[AquinasForGod]

I did answer. We all know murder and rape is wrong. It comes down to how much we ignore it because of conditioning or other factors.

You are litterally being shown an existing culture that is Ok with some child rape. Therfore, it is illogical for you to claim we all know that rape is wrong unless you can explain how the Sambia know it is wrong, but choose to maintain it in their culture.

For them, it is not wrong as it is litterally part of their culture. No amount of you or myself projecting our own feelings on the subject is going to change the facts you have been presented.

You and I know that rape is wrong. The Sambia people's feelings on the matter do not match our own. You need a better defense then just claiming we all know rape is wrong. Do you have any evidence like I do (the Sambia) to support your claim?

They have been conditioned to go against their inner knowing. But they still know rape is wrong. They are conditioned to believe one type of rape is acceptable, which in this case is pedophilia. Many of them probably even know that is wrong but they are stuck in a society that accepts it so they are probably to scared to speak up and try to change things.

They know raping women is wrong, I am sure.

[brunumb]

They know raping women is wrong, I am sure.

"In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination)."

Try again.

[POI]

They know raping women is wrong, I am sure.

"In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination)."

Try again.

For all the back and forth, it really almost is THIS simple. Case/point:

In the field of medicine, you can look at the 'objective' BMI index. (i.e.):

If your BMI is less than 18.5, it falls within the underweight range.
If your BMI is 18.5 to <25, it falls within the healthy weight range.
If your BMI is 25.0 to <30, it falls within the overweight range.
If your BMI is 30.0 or higher, it falls within the obesity range.

In regards to 'objective' findings, VOID of one's personal opinion, above are THE 'objective' answers.

However, ask one if so-and-so is fat, with a BMI of 27%, and they may have a strong inclination that they are 'just right'.

Or maybe a runway model is deemed 'obese', with a BMI of 18%, which is deemed underweight.

So on and so forth we go....

And getting back to 'rape', well, let's compare it to "BMI". What is God's version/opinion of 'rape'? Seems as though, if women are part of the spoils of war, then it is no longer 'rape'. Or if the male is ordered to marry their rape victim, it will no longer be "rape" once they are married. It's then God approved.

"Objective conclusions":

Both (over/under BMI) and (rape) apparently have acceptable contexts. Sorry AquinasForGod! You are "objectively" wrong!

overweight = Over 25% BMI
rape = Sex taken by force, without consent, and/or unlawfully.

Over and under "BMI" are sometimes okay or great, depending on context alone (I.E.) attracting the opposite sex and/or modeling ---> (outside of clinical/medical health alone).

"Rape" is/was sometimes okay or great, depending on certain God given contexts alone (I.E.) war and/or marriage ---> (even though AFG's strong inclination is that rape is always wrong)

[Clownboat]

As with your mention of Jephthah from the book, some speculation on Jephthah's part re YHVH, causes some readers to assume that YHVH is therefore evil.

That would be odd. Until the god concept is shown to be true, we might as well be speculating that Santa Claus is evil or that Tinker Bell likes little boys.

The story is in the book though and I noted that during my days of being a Christian, stories like Jephthah, genocide and or taking virgin girls as the spoils of war was not discussed and only became known from reading the book myself. I also noted that on this site, it seems to be the skeptics that know the most about the book.

Why you focus on YHVH being evil or not is lost on me, but continue on if it makes you happy, it just doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying.

[POI]

They know raping women is wrong, I am sure.

They would then also know raping is not wrong, if it is under certain war conditions, and/or certain marriage arrangements. See post 173 for details.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #174]

As with your mention of Jephthah from the book, some speculation on Jephthah's part re YHVH, causes some readers to assume that YHVH is therefore evil.

That would be odd.

It depends upon the perspective of one's inner mental workings. I suspect that it has something to do with belief in the idea of the problem of evil.

Until the god concept is shown to be true, we might as well be speculating that Santa Claus is evil or that Tinker Bell likes little boys.

Yet here we are, speculating on a god concept anyway.

The story is in the book though and I noted that during my days of being a Christian, stories like Jephthah, genocide and or taking virgin girls as the spoils of war was not discussed and only became known from reading the book myself. I also noted that on this site, it seems to be the skeptics that know the most about the book.

Why you focus on YHVH being evil or not is lost on me, but continue on if it makes you happy, it just doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying.

The point I made was that knowing most about what the books contain, does not mean that one's understanding of YHVH - the god-concept the stories in the books make claims about - is any better than Jephthah's understanding of YHVH.

What you appear to be doing is commenting upon how Christians turn a blind eye to - do not investigate or even know about - those types of human behavior which shows YHVH in an evil cast.

Why say what you are saying if you are not attempting to point that out to Christians?

[Clownboat]

What you appear to be doing...

It matters not what you think I appear to be doing. Focus on what I'm actually doing if you would be so kind.

The story is in the book though and I noted that during my days of being a Christian, stories like Jephthah, genocide and or taking virgin girls as the spoils of war was not discussed and only became known from reading the book myself. I also noted that on this site, it seems to be the skeptics that know the most about the book.

You are free to address my words if you would like. If I express my motives, you can address those as well. Until that time, please cease and desist pretending to know them as it does not foster good debate. For example, I was not trying to paint a god concept in an evil light. If that was the goal, I would not point to Jephthah or how skeptics seem to know the Bible better than believers here. (I do consider genocide and taking virgin girls as the spoils of war to be evil though, just to be clear).

Why say what you are saying if you are not attempting to point that out to Christians?

1) I noted that during my days of being a Christian, stories like Jephthah, genocide and or taking virgin girls as the spoils of war was not discussed.
2) I also noted that on this site, it seems to be the skeptics that know the most about the book. Point 2 follows from point 1.
I point this out for all. You error to think I point this out to Christians only.

Feel free to address my words... or I suppose you could wonder what color socks I'm wearing and what my choice of sock color means about how my orange juice tastes today. But why?

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #177]

It matters not what you think I appear to be doing. Focus on what I'm actually doing if you would be so kind.

That is my point Clownboat. That is why I write that the reader clearly has the opportunity to see I am forwarding what it is that I see as you appearing to be doing.
That gives you the opportunity to reply with explanation as to what you are actually doing, if indeed my perceptions are incorrect on this.

The story is in the book though and I noted that during my days of being a Christian, stories like Jephthah, genocide and or taking virgin girls as the spoils of war was not discussed and only became known from reading the book myself. I also noted that on this site, it seems to be the skeptics that know the most about the book.
You are free to address my words if you would like.

I have been, and shall continue to do so. [See my mention of Jephthah in previous posts]

If I express my motives, you can address those as well.

Ah - Is that what it appears to you that I am doing? I am questioning your unspoken motives?

Until that time, please cease and desist pretending to know them as it does not foster good debate.

Your motives are not a concern of mine Clownboat. I am simply taking the opportunity afforded to me, to inform the reader that going down that particular path doesn't actually mean anything of value.

[In a debate setting, this appears to act like an ace up one's sleeve re the one's you are hunting to debate with.]

There is no particular value in your mentioning that you know the bible better than the average Christian, since - even in the knowing, your knowledge of the bible has not revealed to you or got you any closer to understanding the quintessence of YHVH re Ipsissimus.



Appearances can be deceiving - we can agree with that.

My motive is simply to address the inconsistency a step further by notifying the reader of what is going down.

And - after all Clownboat - this was at your invitation. Post #436 so my question is.

Q: Are you using the wood to build a fortress or a bridge between you and I?

[asking for a 'friend' too.]

[JoeyKnothead]

They know raping women is wrong, I am sure.

"In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination)."

Try again.

If I wanna know who has no moral qualms with the raping, I ask a rapist.

[AquinasForGod]

They know raping women is wrong, I am sure.

They would then also know raping is not wrong, if it is under certain war conditions, and/or certain marriage arrangements. See post 173 for details.

I disagree. They would not know rape is right ever. They might ignore that it is wrong and justify it, but they will know they are justifying it.

When people justify evil, they are aware they are doing so. Oh, this isn't that bad. I really have no choice. It is better this than something else, etc.